Irish Taxpayers Association

Folks.

This is about a Taxpayers Association. It’s not for discussing your personal tax position.

Start a new thread for that
 
MrEarl said:
The power is with Revenue, and that's the way this country works.
Click to expand...
A taxpayers association might help to ensure that that power isn't abused and that public servants aren't put under pressure to say favour the larger taxpayers.
 
llgon said:
An effective Taxpayers Association would have members voting rights weighted according to how much tax they pay. In a similar way to shareholders' voting rights. In that case there might be more emphasis on spending reductions.
Click to expand...
I don't think taxpayers association constituted in this way would be effective to represent the interests of taxpayers as a class; it wouild be effectively dominated by a handful of US-based multinationals, and the likely outcome is that their interests would be prioritised.

Of course, if the group was confined to income tax payers then corporations would be excluded. But such a group would have greatly reduced clout, since income tax accounts for only about 28-29% of overall tax revenue. There's no reason why those who pay income tax, as opposed to those who pay the 71-72% of other tax revenue, should have a particular authority in relation to tax policy overall; still less in relation to public expenditure.
mathepac said:
s. Arguably that's an understatement, as consumers, or Irish Income Tax Payers, also paid the bulk of the VAT receipts of €16.289 billion
Click to expand...
Lots of people who pay no income tax, or very little income tax, do pay VAT. Only 35-40% of Irish adults pay income tax while it's likely that close to 100% of Irish adults buy things that are subject to VAT, so the share of VAT born by people who pay no income tax is proabably quite signicant, though I haven't seen any estimate of the figure.

Tl:dr: "Taxpayers" and "income tax payers" are not the same group at all. Which highlights the question raised by Purple in post #2:
Purple said:
Everybody pays tax. Are you talking about income tax payers?
Click to expand...
OP hasn't actually replied directly to that question, I think. I don't think we can discuss the merits or othewise of the proposed taxpayers association unless we have a fairly clear understanding of who it is to represent and what its mission is to be. Only then can we think about how the organisation might be structured so that it is effective to represent those people and/or pursue that mission.
 
Thanks for all the comments and observations.

Multinationals - I agree that if multinationals were allowed join or fund the ITA, it would be counterproductive. Membership would be confined to individuals and, maybe SMEs. Britain's Taxpayers Alliance, for example, does not accept multinational money. Funding could come from individual membership fees and donations limited to, say, 1000 euro/person/year. There may even be some spare NGO money floating around that the ITA could apply for.

Income tax or VAT - I don't think the income taxpayer v the VAT payers is useful. The power of the ITA would come from the fact they represent taxpayers, i.e. the majority of voters, who want their taxes collected fairly, their allowances and exemptions fairly and quickly administered, and their taxes used efficiently.

Too broad a church? Although its true that the category 'taxpayer' is so amorphous it could be difficult to rally around a single cause, the solution to this would be to keep the ITA narrowly focused. For example, the ITA would never wade into the debate of whether using taxes for immigrant housing is a good use of resources, as this would be far too divisive. But I think all taxpayers would agree that all government departments should report spending is a consistent format for easy analysis (a point recently highlighted by David McWilliams in the IT) and there are many other issues that are politically neutral and that all taxpayers would agree with, regardless of their politics. Those would be the sort of issues the ITA could address.
 
BryanMM said:
the ITA would never wade into the debate of whether using taxes for immigrant housing is a good use of resources, as this would be far too divisive
Click to expand...

So could we discuss whether it is good value for the state to buy apartments for €800k for social housing?

That would be divisive as well.

Or spend billions on a metro when there is an adequate bus service from the airport?

That would be divisive as well.

Brendan
 
Purple said:
They may well be squeezed but it's not because they are paying tax and getting the proverbial "nothing back".
Click to expand...

I have thought about who that is a bit and I think it comes down to how we judge how we are doing in society in comparison to those around us as opposed to absolute.

Ireland does a good job of supporting those with the lowest incomes, social housing, HAP payments, medical cards and other payments. That leads to the effect that those in the middle don't feel like they can get ahead of anyone. Might not want to admit it but I think people want the idea that hard work etc has rewards that they can see in comparison to others.

There is lots of positives to this of course but I think thats one of the negatives. for example the average HAP payment is about €800 a month. For someone in the higher bracket to bring that in they need to earn about €20,000 extra.

Is HAP a topic suitable or the Irish Taxpayers Association?
 
BryanMM said:
I agree that if multinationals were allowed join or fund the ITA, it would be counterproductive. Membership would be confined to individuals and, maybe SMEs. Britain's Taxpayers Alliance, for example, does not accept multinational money . . .
Click to expand...
I think the UK Taxpayer's Alliance is probably not a good model to cite. It's not a representative, membership-based organisation; it's a lobby group whose positions and programs are determined by its funders, who are shrouded in secrecy. Can we find a better model elsewhere?
BryanMM said:
But I think all taxpayers would agree that all government departments should report spending is a consistent format for easy analysis (a point recently highlighted by David McWilliams in the IT) and there are many other issues that are politically neutral and that all taxpayers would agree with, regardless of their politics. Those would be the sort of issues the ITA could address.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't all citizens agree with those priorities. Taxpayers might have an interest in an equitable tax system, or in an efficient tax system, but I'd be leery of any suggestion that they have a particular interest, or should have a particular voice, in how public money is spent. That's a matter than cocnerns all citizens, and I don't think we can acccept that people should acquire influence over public policy because they make financial contributions.
 
I think each political party is effectively a tax policy group. It’s where the money comes from mostly, and if as a tax payer you want to have a voice on the amount of tax charged and what it’s spent on it’s the place for you.
Parties function mainly as coalitions debating/competing over:
  • who pays taxes,
  • how much they pay, and
  • who benefits from public spending.
 
You can only cut tax by cutting pubic expenditure.

So any such group would have to call for cuts in expenditure. And for any sort of credibility, they would have to be specific cuts - e.g. the level of pensions paid, the level of social welfare, child benefit, state quangos, the health system etc.

And any such cuts are divisive. I might want to see useless quangos such as the CCPC abolished but others would want it retained. I would make all pensions means tested, but others would argue "we paid our PRSI so we are entitled to it". I would want people who can afford to pay for their own health care and elder care to do so. But a lot of the topics on askaboutmoney are "how can we get the state to pay for our parents care while we get to inherit the house?".
 
What would the difference between the voting public and the ITA be?

Retired people not represented?

I’d argue that will be by far the biggest one.

In the next 30 years the retired population is going to go from about 25% to 50% of the voting population. They will become far more powerful and certainly no route to government without them.

I suspect that on some point on the journey, probably during a downturn there will be some push back on the current level of funding of pensions etc and how it’s not going to be sustainable.

A tax payers association could flag this. How people are funding the public pensions of those who came before them that they very likely won’t get at the same value while also needing to fund the MFF which they will need however with only so much money to go around probably not funding it or private pensions as much as they should.

Too controversial?
 
Brendan Burgess said:
You can only cut tax by cutting pubic expenditure.

So any such group would have to call for cuts in expenditure.
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't have to. It could focus on pressing for equty and efficiency in the tax system, the tailoring of tax measure to promote desirable public policy outcomes, that kind of thing.
faketales said:
What would the difference between the voting public and the ITA be?

Retired people not represented?
Click to expand...
What makes you think retired people don't pay tax? They certain do, and any taxpayers representative group hoping to have any credibilit would have to represent the interests of retirement people as taxpayers.
 
TomEdison said:
No, it wouldn't have to. It could focus on pressing for equty and efficiency in the tax system, the tailoring of tax measure to promote desirable public policy outcomes, that kind of thing.
Click to expand...

OK, you could have as the objectives fairness in the tax system - which would mean raising the tax on some and cutting it for others. But I doubt that is what the OP is thinking about, but maybe it is.

But the real gains would be made by cutting public expenditure and letting people spend their own money. Instead of giving tax to the government and getting it back as child benefit or free healthcare - cut the tax and abolish child benefit and reduce free healthcare.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
But the real gains would be made by cutting public expenditure and letting people spend their own money. Instead of giving tax to the government and getting it back as child benefit or free healthcare - cut the tax and abolish child benefit and reduce free healthcare.
Click to expand...
Which, as I understand it, is basically the schtick of the Taxpayers Alliance in the UK — they want small government and lower taxes, and they don't actually care very much how t his might affect actual real-world taxpayers, as citizens/residents of the UK.

In short, it's a small-government, right of centre political position. Which, as a poltical position, is as respectable as any other — go ahead and establish a political party that advocates policies of that kind, and see what support you can secure. Just don't try and dress it up as some king of non-partisan group representing taxpayers as a whole. This is a poltical position to which most taxpayers don't, in fact, subscribe.
 
That is a good point.

Maybe it's a taxpayers' political party which is needed.

Every time some left wing group calls for more spending on something or every time the government announces new spending, this party offers the alternative. Cut taxes and let people pay for themselves where they can.

Such a party could also advocate for removing the anomalies in the tax system so that the tax burden is more fairly spread.
 
Although the media is often seen as left-wing, it does try to get the other side of the story but often there is no one there to articulate it.

So if the government decides to spend another €3 billion on buying privately built houses for social housing, Threshold, Simon, Social Justice Ireland and everyone else will welcome it but saying that it is not enough. No one will point out that the taxpayer is paying for this and it's pushing up house prices and reducing supply for those trying to get on the housing ladder. The media would be delighted to have an organisation to turn to for those views.
 
DeeKie said:
I think each political party is effectively a tax policy group. It’s where the money comes from mostly, and if as a tax payer you want to have a voice on the amount of tax charged and what it’s spent on it’s the place for you.
Click to expand...
That is untrue; it's where the money goes. Farmers, whether FF or FG pay the lowest amount of tax but as a group they receive billions in grant-aid every year and yet they are the very ones who at the drop of a milk-carton or a 50-litre diesel container have brought the country to a standstill on numerous occasions going back to the 60's. They have the IFA and the creameries and their off-shoots in their corner; they have no part to play in my concept of the Irish Incometax Payers Association
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top